Ghislaine Maxwell faces 'do or die' moment in court as US Government seeks to block retrial bid
Prince Andrew's close friend Maxwell, 63, who is serving 20 years for child sex offences, has appealed to the US Supreme Court in the hope it will either throw out her conviction or order a retrial.
But tomorrow lawyers for the US government will argue her appeal is 'meritless'.
Last week it was revealed the FBI has dropped any investigation into Prince Andrew – accused by the late Virginia Giuffre of underage sex charges he has denied – and any other men connected to the Jeffrey Epstein case.
It was also reported that Donald Trump 's promise to release the full 'Epstein client list' had been dropped, with officials saying 'there is no client list'.
In response Elon Musk wrote on X: 'Then what is Ghislaine Maxwell in prison for?'
Maxwell is said to be 'anxious but hopeful' about tomorrow's hearing. Last night a source said: 'This is a critical moment, a do or die moment. Ghislaine believes she has multiple grounds for appeal.'
A senior DoJ source told the MoS: 'There is a powerful argument for [the Supreme Court] to take on the Maxwell case.'
Maxwell had requested to the Trump administration for an appeal.
In a letter last month, Solicitor General John Sauer requested more time to consider Maxwell's request.
She is the only Epstein associate serving time in prison for their role in the late paedophiles sick network.
Her lawyers and family are yet to appeal directly to the president.
But former Trump friend and attorney Alan Dershowitz previously told the Daily Mail that he would be right to consider it.
He believes the disgraced socialite's 'excessive' 20-year sentence should be commuted for her immediate release, and then a pardon.
'Certainly she should get a commutation. The sentence was way, way, way in excess of anything she was alleged to have done.
'She was in part a victim of Epstein. The fact that Epstein died made her a primary target and caused an excessive sentence to her. Some executive clemency is very much warranted in her case.'
The former Harvard Law School professor has spoken out in the wake of the surprise pardons for TV reality couple Todd and Julie Chrisley, who were convicted of federal bank fraud and tax evasion charges in 2022.
His remarks also come after DailyMail.com exclusively revealed that speculation is swirling over a possible pardon for Maxwell - who is doing time in a federal prison in Tallahassee, Florida - due to her past ties to Trump.
One ultra-close source to the Maxwell family told us last week: 'It's not a bad idea to ask President Trump for a pardon. He knew her. He's probably got views about whether she's guilty or innocent.'
Maxwell's freedom-campaigning brothers Ian, 69, and Kevin, 66, have not so far petitioned for a pardon or commutation, the family source told us. But they have not ruled out the possibility.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
17 minutes ago
- The Independent
Pentagon announces new contract with Musk's Grok AI just a week after its anti-Semitic turn
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging. At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story. The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it. Your support makes all the difference.
The Independent
37 minutes ago
- The Independent
Trump is looking at making money out of Nato
Donald Trump has not turned against Vladimir Putin. Rather, he has just announced a big day of future sales for the US arms industry with a buying bonanza for Ukraine by Nato. With the secretary general of Nato sitting next to him in the Oval Office, the US president warned that Russia would face '100 per cent' tariffs if it did not agree to a ceasefire with Kyiv inside 50 days. He went on to criticise Putin several times for his warm approach and manner on the telephone which he then followed up by renewed missile attacks on Ukraine. 'I wouldn't call him an assassin - but I would call him a very tough guy,' he said of the Russian president. Howver, unveiling what he had teased in the days before as a 'major statement' on Putin, Trump's agreement to what both he and Rutter called a 'very big' deal to sell weapons to Nato which could then be sent on to Ukraine, had no details. 'We've made a deal today where we are going to be sending them weapons and they're [Nato] going to be paying for them,' the president said. 'The United States will not be having any payment made. We're not buying it, but we will manufacture it and they're going to be paying for it.' It is not the first deal Trump has struck in the war, with an agreement made directly with Ukraine earlier this year to trade mineral profits for arms sales, although none have been ordered through this mechanism. For Volodymyr Zelensky, today's news was signifcant as he has been trying since February to find ways to buy US weapons either directly, or through allies like the UK and others in Nato. Nato is generally not restricted in its arms purchases from fellow members, but Washington has imposed some conditions on whether they can be sold or given to other countries. Now Trump has declared that the delivery of Patriot air defence missiles, which are badly needed by Ukraine to counter the record levels of Russian attacks in the last month, can start soon. In addition, there may be packages of weapons that could include long range rockets and missiles for deep strikes inside Russia – which could have tactical and even a strategic impact. Ukraine has shown lately that with stealth and guile it has been able to use intelligence agents and drones to devastating effect over thousands of miles of Russian territory. But more long range cruise missiles like the Storm Shadow currently being supplied by the UK and France would be welcome. Yet it should be aware that there's no guarantee that if Putin signals he's happy to enter ceasefire talks that Trump will not turn off the arms supply spigot for Kyiv. He already did so earlier this year – and for a while also blinded Ukraine's intelligence feeds from US assets. For his part, Rutte was keen to make sure that Trump got all the credit for a drift of policy away from backing every position adopted by Putin towards some support for Nato. 'The decision is that you want Ukraine... to be able to defend itself against Russia,' the head of Nato said. 'But you want Europeans to pay for it, which is totally logical. And this is building on the tremendous success of the Nato summit.' Trump said he hoped that the arms deal with Nato would have an impact on both sides and acknowledged that Ukraine might be emboldened by fresh supplies from the US. But the key phrase in Monday's meandering Oval Office performance was that 'we have certain parameters that both sides know, and we already know what should be done'. By this Trump means - and has repeatedly said - that Ukraine must accept it has lost the areas currently occupied by the Kremlin 's forces (about 20 per cent of its land mass and including Crimea); that the US will not guarantee Ukraine's future security and that Kyiv should forever give up on joining Nato. Taking these positions at the outset of his second presidency blindsided Kyiv and US allies across the world. So while Trump's agreement to sell guns and ammunition to Kyiv is a small shift based on personal irritation, it's not a strategic move. Ukraine and her allies will put those weapons to urgent use before he veers back again to Putin – which they must assume he will.
Telegraph
38 minutes ago
- Telegraph
We're finally learning the awful truth about who ruled America under Biden
The autopen may be mightier than the sword – or the law – but it's not a shield. The latest revelations about the extent to which Joe Biden's staff affixed his signature to pardons and commutations in his name, using a device to replicate his handwriting, is further damning evidence of who was really running his White House. The joke is that the autopen was in charge. The sad reality is that Biden's unelected staff and family were exercising the constitutional powers of the presidency without the obvious supervision of an elected leader. Say what you will about the erratic nature of Donald Trump's decisions and public statements; when the 79-year-old does or says something, there's no mistaking his signature (although he has said he's used the autopen for 'very unimportant papers'). Not so with Biden. A report in Sunday's New York Times, including a brief telephone interview with the 82-year-old former president, discloses some new details about the scale of the auto-pardons, but it is full of cautions about how much the authors may not know. The Times piece is transparently an effort by Biden's team to use a sympathetic outlet to get a favourable spin on the facts ahead of investigations by Congress and the Justice Department. Readers will notice how far into the article one must get before encountering the facts. But even the facts we know are hard to whitewash. The scale of Biden's pardons was unprecedented. Presidents have previously used blanket pardons in the military context to grant amnesty to Vietnam-era deserters and draft dodgers and Confederate soldiers. But nobody has come close to the more than 4,000 criminal-law pardons and commutations for individuals that were issued from the Biden White House between the election and Biden's departure from office. Biden's name was affixed to more pardons in 10 weeks than Franklin D Roosevelt issued in 12 years. The most controversial of these are probably the ones that Biden actually thought through: scandalously broad pardons for Biden's family members and for polarising political figures such as Dr Anthony Fauci, alongside an across-the-board decision to clear out death row by commuting all but three of the current federal death sentences. But there were thousands more beyond that. Confirming that all of those pardons and commutations were justified in such a short time would be a Herculean labour. Biden and his team now say that he authorised the autopen to be used 25 times, some of them covering whole categories of hundreds of people based on general criteria. But who decided that each of these was a proper use of a power that the Constitution reserves personally to the president? For example, Biden mass-commuted sentences of people given home confinement during the pandemic. Some of them committed notorious abuses of public trust that harmed large numbers of people. Did the president know he was doing that? The 'process' apparently involved oral 'blurbs' from the often-incoherent elderly chief executive, which were then reported to the staff secretary controlling the autopen as authorisation for staff to give her lists of names purportedly meeting criteria signed off on by Biden. According to the New York Times, the lists sometimes changed slightly after the meetings without the president necessarily being aware. Everyone involved is lawyering up. Even Biden's doctor is pleading his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent to avoid self-incrimination. The entire spectacle is dramatic proof of how presidential power can be abused when the president's mental faculties are fading to match his ethical standards and nobody in the room has to worry about facing the voters ever again. Biden's allies are now trying to shift the public's focus to the narrow legal issue of whether the pardons and commutations are invalid. That's a daunting standard for his critics to meet, one without precedent in American legal history. So long as there is some basis to argue that the president authorised a pardon, there's nothing in the law that requires his personal signature. Trump's Justice Department may well decide that it's not worth the effort to fight the pardons in court. But what the law allows to happen is far from the biggest issue: it's that the pardon machine went into overdrive while the president was barely awake at the switch. The pardon power is the most absolute of all presidential powers, one modelled more closely on the power of a king than anything else the president does. The major check on its abuse is surely supposed to be that the president himself signs off on every pardon as an act of personal clemency. If even that power was falling into the hands of the staff, what does that tell us about the many other presidential powers that were wielded in Joe Biden's name while he was napping?
